Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Several current and former employees of the City of Chicago, including police officers and an emergency management officer, challenged the City’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. The policy, issued in October 2021, required city employees to either be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo regular testing and report their status through an employee portal. Religious exemptions from vaccination were available and granted to these plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs objected to having to submit their vaccination status and test results in the portal, arguing that this reporting requirement violated their constitutional and statutory rights.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the First and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (IRFRA). The district court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. It found the Title VII claims factually implausible and concluded that the plaintiffs did not allege a religious practice conflicting with the reporting requirements. The court also held that, since the plaintiffs were granted their requested exemptions from vaccination, they could not succeed on claims based on their refusal to comply with reporting requirements.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The Seventh Circuit held that the policy’s reporting requirements were neutral and generally applicable, subject only to rational-basis review, which the policy satisfied. The court determined that the reporting and disciplinary provisions were rationally related to the City’s legitimate interest in public health and workplace safety. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all constitutional, statutory, and state-law claims, finding the plaintiffs’ arguments insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. View "Kondilis v City of Chicago" on Justia Law

The plaintiff was an employee who brought claims for wrongful termination, Labor Code violations, and breach of contract against two defendants: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the Public Transportation Services Corporation (PTSC). MTA had created PTSC, a nonprofit public benefit corporation, to provide retirement and employment benefits to certain workers and to manage employees who support MTA’s transportation functions. The plaintiff did not file a prelitigation claim under the Government Claims Act (GCA) before suing these entities.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County first granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of both defendants, finding that the plaintiff had not alleged compliance with the GCA’s claim presentation requirements. The plaintiff was given leave to amend but continued to argue that PTSC was not a public entity subject to the GCA, and that even if it was, the claims presentation requirement should not apply because PTSC had not registered as required by statute. The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend, finding both defendants to be public entities and that PTSC was not required to register separately from MTA. The court entered judgment for both defendants.On appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, the plaintiff did not challenge the judgment in favor of MTA but contested the ruling as to PTSC. The appellate court held that PTSC qualifies as a public entity for purposes of the GCA’s claims presentation requirement, given its creation and control by MTA. However, the court found that if PTSC failed to register properly on the Registry of Public Agencies—including with county clerks where it maintains offices—this would excuse the plaintiff’s noncompliance with the GCA. The judgment for MTA was affirmed, but the judgment for PTSC was reversed and remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint. View "Black v. L.A. County Metropolitan Transp. Authority" on Justia Law

A homeowners association in San Diego, governed by the Davis-Stirling Act and its own bylaws, held a recall election to remove a board director. The association distributed recall ballot materials, including a candidate statement from the sole candidate seeking to replace the director if the recall succeeded. The sitting director sought to include her own statement in these materials to advocate against her removal but was denied by the elections inspector, who reasoned that only candidate statements were included. The association’s election rules defined “association media” to exclude candidate forms or statements attached to ballots.Previously, the Superior Court of San Diego County, in a separate action brought by the same director, found no violation of the statutory equal-access requirement for association media, concluding that all candidates had equal opportunity to submit statements using the association’s forms for regular board elections. Following the recall, the director filed a new petition and complaint challenging the association’s refusal to distribute her statement, alleging violations of Civil Code section 5105, various Corporations Code provisions, and negligence. After a bench trial, the Superior Court again ruled for the association and the inspector, finding the candidate statement was not “association media” under the relevant statute and that the recall vote met statutory requirements.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reversed. It held that “association media” as used in Civil Code section 5105 does encompass ballot materials containing candidate statements distributed by the association during an election. The court concluded the director was entitled to equal access to these materials to advocate her position. The court remanded for further proceedings to determine, under Civil Code section 5145, whether the association’s failure to provide equal access affected the election outcome. The judgment was reversed and remanded with directions. View "Arroyo v. Pacific Ridge Neighborhood Homeowners Assn." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, all residents, property owners, and taxpayers in Johnson County, Wyoming, brought a declaratory action against the county’s Board of Commissioners and the Wyoming Department of Audit (including its Director). Their complaint alleged that the Board mismanaged county finances and violated state fiscal statutes, and that the Department failed to enforce compliance. The plaintiffs claimed that these actions caused them tangible harm as taxpayers through increased taxes and fees. Their suit included ten counts, all seeking declarations of statutory or constitutional violations and requesting judicial oversight, including a forensic audit.The District Court of Johnson County reviewed the case after the Board and the Department moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The district court agreed, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient personal or particularized injury, and dismissed the complaint for lack of standing. The plaintiffs appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish prudential standing under Wyoming’s Brimmer test, which requires a tangible personal stake in the outcome, not just a generalized grievance. The court also declined to recognize taxpayer standing, since the plaintiffs’ claims of increased tax burdens were speculative and unsupported by specific factual allegations. Even though the plaintiffs argued the case was of great public importance, the court held that public interest alone is insufficient to relax standing requirements without a concrete, particularized harm. As a result, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the action for lack of standing. View "Williams v. Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County" on Justia Law

A former deputy executive director of a bi-state agency, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was prosecuted in connection with the “Bridgegate” scandal. Although convicted, his convictions were ultimately vacated and the indictment dismissed. Having incurred approximately $4 million in legal expenses, he sought indemnification from the Port Authority under its bylaws, which provide for reimbursement of legal costs upon acquittal or dismissal of criminal charges, subject to certain notice and procedural requirements.After the Port Authority denied his request for indemnification, he commenced suit in New York state court. The Port Authority removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. There, the Port Authority argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had not satisfied a condition precedent for suit—specifically, timely delivery of the judgment of acquittal per the bylaws—meaning that the necessary waiver of sovereign immunity had not occurred. The district court agreed, dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and subsequently denying leave to amend the complaint as futile, finding that the plaintiff had failed to plead compliance with the condition precedent.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal. It held that the Port Authority does not possess state sovereign immunity from suit in federal court, as established by the Supreme Court in Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., and therefore a failure to plead waiver of sovereign immunity does not deprive the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, overruling prior circuit precedent to the contrary. The court also vacated the denial of leave to amend, clarifying that compliance with contractual or statutory conditions is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional prerequisite. View "Baroni v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey" on Justia Law

An employee of a company specializing in training security officers raised concerns to management about unsafe working conditions, including the handling of weapons and a hazardous firing range where bullet ricochets had resulted in injuries. The employee, along with other instructors, formally complained to supervisors about these dangers, especially during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when he also questioned restrictions on personal protective equipment. After voicing these safety concerns, the employee was suspended and later terminated, allegedly for insubordination.The employee filed a charge with the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asserting that his termination was unlawful retaliation for engaging in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). After investigation, an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ) held a hearing and determined that the employee was not a managerial employee and was therefore protected by the NLRA. The ALJ found that the primary reason for the suspension and termination was the employee’s repeated advocacy regarding workplace safety, not insubordination. The ALJ concluded that the employer had committed unfair labor practices. The employer appealed, and the NLRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision with minor modifications.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the NLRB’s order. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court held that the Board’s conclusion—that the employee was not a managerial employee—was supported by the record. The court found that the employee lacked authority to formulate or implement management policy and did not possess the discretion characteristic of managerial status. Therefore, the employee was entitled to the NLRA’s protections. The court granted the NLRB’s application for enforcement of its order and denied the employer’s cross-petition for review. View "National Labor Relations Board v. Constellis, LLC" on Justia Law

A licensed horse trainer was involved in a dispute with a state racing steward after the steward refused to reinstate an assistant trainer’s license. Following a heated phone conversation in which the trainer criticized the steward, the state agency regulating horse racing initiated a disciplinary action against the trainer, alleging conduct that could negatively reflect on the integrity of horse racing. A panel of stewards found a violation and issued a conditional fine. The trainer appealed for a de novo administrative hearing but later withdrew the appeal and instead filed a lawsuit in district court, claiming the agency’s actions were a retaliatory violation of his state constitutional rights under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act.The district court denied the agency’s motion for summary judgment, holding that judicial immunity was not available to the public body under the Civil Rights Act. On interlocutory appeal, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the statutory language preserved judicial immunity as a defense and that the agency was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity based on its role and the nature of the proceedings, directing entry of summary judgment for the agency.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reviewed whether judicial immunity is a defense available to a public body sued under the New Mexico Civil Rights Act. The Court held that judicial immunity does apply to public bodies in this context, reasoning that the doctrine’s policy goals—protecting independent decision-making and the integrity of judicial or quasi-judicial processes—apply to both individuals and government entities. However, the Court found the record insufficient to decide whether the agency’s conduct warranted immunity under this standard and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its clarified framework. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals’ decision. View "Bolen v. N.M. Racing Commission" on Justia Law

Several defendants facing prosecution for federal criminal charges in the District of New Jersey challenged the authority of Alina Habba to serve as Acting U.S. Attorney. They argued that her appointment violated federal law governing who may serve as an acting official in positions requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Habba’s appointment followed a series of administrative moves: after the previous U.S. Attorney resigned, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney initially assumed the acting duties under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). The Attorney General later appointed interim U.S. Attorneys, including Habba, under a statute specific to U.S. Attorneys, and after Habba’s interim term expired, she was made a Special Attorney and designated First Assistant, with the government contending this made her eligible for acting service under the FVRA.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, presided over by Judge Matthew W. Brann, denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss their indictments but granted their motions to disqualify Habba from participating in the prosecutions. The court found that Habba was not lawfully serving as Acting U.S. Attorney under the governing statutes. The government appealed the disqualification order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court's order under the collateral order doctrine. The Third Circuit held that only the First Assistant in place at the time of the vacancy is eligible for automatic acting service under the FVRA and that Habba, having been nominated for the permanent U.S. Attorney position, was barred from acting service by the FVRA’s nomination restriction. The court also held that the Attorney General’s broad delegation of all U.S. Attorney powers to Habba was prohibited by the FVRA’s exclusivity provision. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order disqualifying Habba from the prosecutions. View "USA v. Giraud" on Justia Law

A California nonprofit organization focused on preventing deceptive environmental claims filed a lawsuit against a manufacturer of feminine hygiene products. The organization alleged that the manufacturer labeled and advertised certain products, including period underwear, pads, and panty liners, as “organic” or “made with organic cotton” in violation of the California Organic Food and Farming Act (COFFA). The complaint stated that these products contained less than the minimum required percentage of certified organic materials and included nonagricultural and nonorganically produced components not permitted under state or federal organic standards.The case was first heard in the Alameda County Superior Court. The manufacturer moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that COFFA applies only to agricultural products, cosmetics, and pet food—not to personal care products such as feminine hygiene items. The Superior Court agreed with the manufacturer and granted judgment on the pleadings, concluding that COFFA did not govern the products in question. The nonprofit timely appealed that decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case de novo. The appellate court held that COFFA applies broadly to all products sold as “organic” or containing “organic” materials in California, unless specifically exempted, and that the statute’s plain language encompasses feminine hygiene products. The court found no basis for an implied exception for personal care products and determined that the trial court erred in its interpretation. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, clarifying that COFFA’s standards and labeling requirements apply to the manufacturer’s products at issue. View "Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael" on Justia Law

A city in California owned a downtown parking garage known as Garage 5, which was in poor condition and underutilized according to studies conducted in 2019 and 2022. The city had previously adopted a housing plan to identify public land suitable for housing development. In public meetings and study sessions throughout 2021 and 2022, city staff and consultants presented data showing declining demand for public parking and the high cost of necessary repairs to Garage 5. After further study and public comment, the city’s council passed a resolution in December 2022 declaring Garage 5 to be surplus land under the Surplus Land Act, provided that any future development retain at least 75 public parking spaces.The owner of nearby properties, Airport Business Center, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in Sonoma County Superior Court. The petitioner argued the city had violated the Surplus Land Act by declaring the garage surplus while there was still an ongoing need for public parking and contended that the city’s findings were not supported by the evidence. The Superior Court denied the petition, finding the city’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious, and that there was substantial evidentiary support for the resolution. A temporary stay was granted pending appeal, but the Court of Appeal denied a request for further stay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the Surplus Land Act’s requirement that property be “not necessary for the agency’s use” allows a city to designate property as surplus if it is not indispensable for agency operations, even if the property serves a public purpose like parking. The evidence supported the city’s determination, and the findings in the resolution satisfied statutory requirements. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, awarding costs to the city. View "Airport Business Center v. City of Santa Rosa" on Justia Law